DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Validation Study of Normality Distribution of Aquatic Toxicity Data for Statistical Analysis

수생태 독성자료의 정규성 분포 특성 확인을 통해 통계분석 시 분포 특성 적용에 대한 타당성 확인 연구

  • OK, Seung-yeop (Department of Marine Sciences and Convergent Technology, Hanyang University) ;
  • Moon, Hyo-Bang (Department of Marine Sciences and Convergent Technology, Hanyang University) ;
  • Ra, Jin-Sung (Regulatory Chemical Analysis & Risk assessment Center, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology (KITECH))
  • 옥승엽 (한양대학교 해양융합공학과) ;
  • 문효방 (한양대학교 해양융합공학과) ;
  • 나진성 (한국생산기술연구원 환경규제기술센터)
  • Received : 2019.04.01
  • Accepted : 2019.04.20
  • Published : 2019.04.30

Abstract

Objectives: According to the central limit theorem, the samples in population might be considered to follow normal distribution if a large number of samples are available. Once we assume that toxicity dataset follow normal distribution, we can treat and process data statistically to calculate genus or species mean value with standard deviation. However, little is known and only limited studies are conducted to investigate whether toxicity dataset follows normal distribution or not. Therefore, the purpose of study is to evaluate the generally accepted normality hypothesis of aquatic toxicity dataset Methods: We selected the 8 chemicals, which consist of 4 organic and 4 inorganic chemical compounds considering data availability for the development of species sensitivity distribution. Toxicity data were collected at the US EPA ECOTOX Knowledgebase by simple search with target chemicals. Toxicity data were re-arranged to a proper format based on the endpoint and test duration, where we conducted normality test according to the Shapiro-Wilk test. Also we investigated the degree of normality by simple log transformation of toxicity data Results: Despite of the central limit theorem, only one large dataset (n>25) follow normal distribution out of 25 large dataset. By log transforming, more 7 large dataset show normality. As a result of normality test on small dataset (n<25), log transformation of toxicity value generally increases normality. Both organic and inorganic chemicals show normality growth for 26 species and 30 species, respectively. Those 56 species shows normality growth by log transformation in the taxonomic groups such as amphibian (1), crustacean (21), fish (22), insect (5), rotifer (2), and worm (5). In contrast, mollusca shows normality decrease at 1 species out of 23 that originally show normality. Conclusions: The normality of large toxicity dataset was not always satisfactory to the central limit theorem. Normality of those data could be improved through log transformation. Therefore, care should be taken when using toxicity data to induce, for example, mean value for risk assessment.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 국가과학기술연구회

References

  1. Korea ministry of government legislation. Act on registration, evaluation, etc. of chemical. Available: http://law.go.kr. [accessed 25 March 2019].
  2. European Commission. Technical Guidance Document Part ? in support of the Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances; 2003. p. 99-105.
  3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection Of Aquatic Organisms and Their Use; 1985. p. 16-20.
  4. Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The Importance of the Normality Assumption in Large Public Health Data Sets. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 2002; 23:151-169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546
  5. Robert V. Hogg, Elliot A. Tanis, Dale L. Zimmerman. Probability and Statistical Inference. Pearson Education, Inc. 9th ed; 2014. p. 200-202.
  6. Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis:A Guide for Non-Statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2012; 10(2):486-489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
  7. Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ. Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. Exp Suppl. 2012; 101:133-64.
  8. J. F. SKIDMORE. Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic Animals with Specieal Reference to Fish. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1964; 39(3):227-48. https://doi.org/10.1086/404229
  9. Solomon F. Impacts of Copper on Aquatic Ecosystems and Human Health. Environment and Communities. 2009; 25-28.
  10. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium-Freshwater 2016. 2016; p. 33-35.
  11. United States Environmental Protection Agency. ECOTOX Knowledgebase. Available: https://cfpub. epa.gov/ecotox/ [accessed 25 March 2019].
  12. S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika. 1965; Vol. 52, No. 3/4, pp. 591-611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
  13. World Health Organization. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Available: http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim405.htm [accessed 25 March 2019].
  14. Barata C, Solayan A, Porte C. Role of B-esterases in assessing toxicity of organophosphorus(chlorpyrifos, malathion) and carbamte (carbofuran) pesticides to Daphnia magna. Aquatic Toxicology. 2004; p. 125-139.
  15. Russom CL, Bradbury SP, Broderius SJ, Hammermeister DE, Drummond RA. Preding modes of toxic action from chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the fathead minnow(Pimephales promelas). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1997; Vol. 16, No. 5, pp 948-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620160514
  16. Azevedo BF, Furieri LB, Pecanha FM, Wiggers GA, Vassallo PF, Simoes MR, et al. Toxic Effects of Mercury on the Cardiovascular and Central Nervous Systems. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology. 2012; vol. 2012, p. 11.
  17. Zeng L, Huang L, Zhao M, Liu S, He Z, et al. Acute Toxicity of Zinc Sulfate Heptahydrate ($ZnSO_4*7H_2O$) and Copper (II) Sulfate Pentahydrate ($CuSO_4*5H_2O$) on Freshwater Fish, Percocypris pingi. Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal. 2018; 9:240.
  18. Kumar P, Singh A. Cadmium toxicity in fish:An overview. GERF Bulletin of Biosciences. 2010; 1(1):41-47.
  19. Ameen, U., Afshan, S., Ali, S., Farid, M., Bharwana, S., Hannan, F., et al. Effect of Different Heavy Metal Pollution on Fish. Research Journal of Chemical and Environmental Sciences. 2014; 2, 74-79.
  20. P.-Y. Daoust, G. Wobeser, J.D. Newstead. Acute Pathological Effects of Inorganic Mercury and Copper in Gills of Rainbow Trout. Veterinary Pathology. 1984; 21:93-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098588402100116
  21. Bradbury SP, Carlson RW, Henry TR. "Polar Narcosis in Aquatic Organisms". In Williams LR, Cowgill UM (eds.). Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment. 12. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 1989; 59-73.
  22. Rand GM. Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Effects, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. 1995; pp. 50-53.
  23. Melnikov F, Kostal J, Voutchkova-Kostal A, Zimmerman J, Anastats P. Assessment of predicitive models for estimating the acute aquatic toxicity of organic chemicals. Green Chem. 2016; 18, 4432-4445. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6GC00720A
  24. King GKK. Revisiting Species Sensitivity Distribution : modelling species variability for the protection of communities. Bio-Informatique, Biologie Systemique [q-bio.QM]. [Francais]: Universite Claude Bernard-Lyon I; 2015.
  25. Campos B. Daphnia magna bioassays to detect novel Eco-toxicological effects of prioritary and emergent contaminants.[Barcelona]: University Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC); 2014.
  26. Guilhermino L, Diamantino T, Silva M, Soares A. Acute Toxicity Test with Daphnia magna: An Alternative to Mammals in the Prescreening of Chemical Toxicity. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2000; 46(3):357-62. https://doi.org/10.1006/eesa.2000.1916